Did a student paper arguing for traditional gender roles and identities deserve its failing grade? Or was that mark proof of political bias, and of academe’s hostility to religious conservatives?
That debate is unspooling at the University of Oklahoma. There, Samantha Fulnecky was recently asked in a psychology course on lifespan development to respond to an academic article. In her short reaction paper, Fulnecky wrote that while the article “discussed peers using teasing as a way to enforce gender norms,” she did “not necessarily see this as a problem,” according to screenshots of her paper that were posted on X by the university’s Turning Point USA chapter. That’s because “God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose.”